Orsam Books

Lord Orsam Says...Part 24


The year 2022 kicked off with a string of literally brain dead posts from Miss Information in the Incontrovertible thread which made no sense at all.  Her brain is broken!

The first one was #8062 in which she showed that she doesn't understand what may be the simplest thing in the whole case.

She asks why Mike Barrett went ahead with Robert Smith's request to arrange a meeting with Eddie Lyons.

The answer is in the question. Robert Smith requested it and Mike helpfully set up the meeting. What more is there to say?

By way of reminder, Smith tells us in his book that 'I asked Barrett if he could arrange for me to meet Lyons.  He said he could...'. So Mike was doing Smith a favour in response to a specific request. It's as simple as that.

But Miss Information went on to list a string of silly questions:

'Why was Mike prepared to admit to Robert, merely by agreeing to arrange the meeting, that he knew who Eddie Lyons was; knew how to contact Eddie Lyons; knew Eddie Lyons used the Saddle and lived close by; knew Eddie Lyons was an electrician who had worked in Battlecrease...'

This is incredible.  Robert Smith already knew in June 1993 that Mike 'knew who Eddie was' which is the very reason why he asked Mike to set up the meeting!    I mean, it's unbelievable that such a question can be asked.   It's a known fact that Mike went round to Eddie's house in February 1993, after Feldman passed on Eddie's fake offer to agree that he found the diary in Battlecrease while working there as an electrician in 1989.   So of course Mike knew who Eddie was and how to contact him and that he lived close by and that he was an electrician who had worked in Battlecrease.

How can a brain be so broken as to not be able to work this out?

As for whether Eddie Lyons 'used the Saddle', Mike didn't need to know this at all. He simply set up the meeting in the Saddle.  Eddie might never have been there before in his life.

The silly questions continued: 

'...knew he could persuade Eddie Lyons to say his piece in the pub to a complete stranger; and knew Eddie Lyons wouldn't come out with anything that would compromise his own insistence that he got the diary in 1991 from his mate Tony?'

Well, if Mike had forged the diary, he didn't need to persuade Eddie to say anything nor would he have thought Eddie could compromise anything because he would have known Eddie knew nothing!

Again, the bleedin' obvious. 

I wouldn't mind, but her question applies with far more force if Eddie had given or sold the diary to Mike, as Miss Information believes. In that case, how could Mike have known that Eddie wouldn't blurt the truth out to Robert Smith?

This all assumes that the man Mike introduced to Robert Smith WAS actually Eddie Lyons.  Eddie denies he was at the meeting, apparently. Smith had never met the man before and wouldn't have known him from Adam. So we literally only have Mike's word that Eddie was there!  Mike Barrett, a known liar!  Yet, instead of taking the point seriously and investigating the possibility that the man was an imposter by asking her good friend Robert for a description of the man he met in the Saddle that night, there is just silence. 


It actually got worse.

RJ had made the point in December 2021 that Mike Barrett had insisted in 1999 that it was Anna Koren who claimed that his wife had multiple personalities, not him.

It's something that Keith Skinner and Miss Information have both misunderstood for more than twenty years.

Somehow thinking she was contradicting RJ, Miss Information, in #8603, posted an extract from a hitherto unpublished letter from Mike Barrett to Doreen Montgomery from 1996 as follows:

'But you got to Remeber Anne is a pathology lier Anner Koren proved that in the handwriting. 97 Drifrent personlitys is what she said.'

So Mike was there saying exactly the same thing as he went on to say in 1999.  The point is that "she said", by which he meant Anna Koren said, that Anne was suffering from different personalities.

That's the point he made in 1999 which Keith and Miss Information failed to grasp and, even though Mike has there put it clearly in writing, Miss Information has still fucking failed to grasp it today, in 2022!!!!

How difficult is it?

Mike was saying in 1996 that Anna Koren said that, from an analysis of the handwriting of the diary, the author - who he knows to be his wife - has different (i.e. multiple) personalities. 

He also seems to be saying that Anna Koren proved that Anne is a pathological liar, but that's irrelevant because, if Anne forged the diary in the way Mike claimed, he obviously knew she was a liar (and a pathological one at that) because she had not only denied doing so but claimed that the diary had been in her family for donkeys years.

What's amazing is that Miss Information's comment about the extract she posted was:

'It really does pay to be reminded...that there is much more material in existence than what is readily available on this site and what Mike may have said on one occasion has to be weighed with what he has said or written on others'.

She genuinely seems to think that the extract contradicts what RJ wrote, and is different from what Mike said at the April 1999 meeting when it is, in fact, exactly the same!

Two things remain unchanged.

1. There's still no evidence that Mike ever used Anna Koren's 'multiple personality' claim as a means of explaining why the handwriting in the diary was different to Anne's handwriting.  This is in contrast to the claim by the authors of 'Inside Story' (page 236) that Mike did this at the Cloak & Dagger meeting on 10 April 1999 after he had been 'Pressed by Skinner to explain why the writing was not similar to Anne's', something which never happened!

2. Mike is clearly saying in the letter to Doreen, just as he said in 1999, that the handwriting in the diary was Anne's.  This entire discussion arose when Kattrup  claimed that Mike 'consistently' said that the diary was written by Anne and here we have yet ANOTHER, hitherto unknown, example of him doing so in 1996!!! So this was really a self own of the most extraordinary kind by Miss Information.


One can literally see the extreme defensiveness of Miss Information over her use of the word 'reminded'.   Even though she had already claimed, ludicrously, to have given RJ a 'junior level comprehension lesson' about what it is to be reminded of something, she still keeps prattling on about it.  The lady doth protest way too much!  

The reason for this is that she knows full well that no one reminded Mike of anything at the 20 July 1995 meeting.

There's not a single piece of evidence that Mike was reminded at that meeting that Anne wrote the diary.

Despite providing no evidence, Miss Information said mysteriously in #8604 that RJ 'has no real idea of the context, or how many twists and turns there were in Mike's claims about the diary's origins'.

It's another self own because her own fucking book was supposed to give us the context to the 20 July 1995 meeting, and to tell us all about the twists and turns of Mike's claims. If RJ doesn't know it, it can only be because the authors failed to tell the story properly in their book.

She then wrote, irrelevantly:

'I defy anyone who was present in Baker Street that day to have predicted what Mike was planning to claim about the diary when he first arrived; what he was going to come out with next, at various moments during the session; or whether he would have decided by the end of it which version of the story he was going to settle on.'

It's wholly irrelevant to the point under discussion what anyone at the Baker Street meeting would have predicted because it's got nothing to do with the price of fish.  The issue at stake is whether anyone reminded Mike of his story.  It doesn't matter what someone at the July 1995 meeting might have predicted Mike was going to say during the meeting or what they thought his version of the story was.  Did anyone fucking remind him that Anne wrote the diary, yes or no?

If yes, who reminded him and what did they say? 

If no, why don't you just shut up? 

Her terrified defensiveness on the issue, on which she knows she's gone badly wrong, is revealed by her statement that:

'If RJ was seriously arguing that a question, remark or casual observation, cannot act as a reminder to the person in need of one, then it was indeed time to move from this pointless, but momentarily amusing interlude.' 

It's utterly absurd.  Mike could, of course, have been reminded that Anne wrote the diary by the sound of falling rain outside the window, by the flapping of the wings of a butterfly or the faint aroma of a secretary's perfume.  But what Miss Information originally and categorically stated was very clear:

'when reminded that his claim was that Anne wrote it, he [Mike] moved swiftly on...' 

She was saying that someone expressly reminded Mike of his claim that Anne wrote it and then Mike changed the subject.  That's what the fucking sentence says.

She's obviously now re-read the relevant passage in 'Inside Story' relating to the meeting of 20 July 1995 and realizes it says nothing of the kind happened.  She's obviously now also re-read the transcript produced in Feldman's book which also says nothing of the kind.  So in a frantic state of panic she's fallen back on claiming that there was some kind of 'casual observation or question' by an unspecified personwhich could have been about anything, which apparently triggered Mike's memory and 'reminded' him that Anne wrote the diary.

Well, to be able know that, she'd have to be able to see inside Mike's mind back in July 1995, which she can't do. 

No, she was originally claiming that Mike had been verbally reminded that he had previously told a different story, but she was wrong, she simply can't admit it, and is wriggling for her life.


After those three masterpieces, Miss Information, clearly thoroughly discombobulated by the result of the Bitha's poll, moved on to a full length propaganda appeal to the members of the forum, many of whom, she said, 'seem to think it has now been shown that the diary was written by one or both of the Barretts'.  Tee hee!

Even funnier is that she went on to say, 'and it's easy to see how they arrived at this belief'.

*howls of laughter*
Showing her total defensiveness at her recent mistakes, she threatens 'a housekeeping post' in which she is going to 'help readers make up their own mind' how Mike was 'reminded' of his claim that Anne physically wrote the diary (she just can't leave it alone, can she?) and just how 'consistently' he claimed this from June 1994.

The bizarre thing is that the point of issue about Mike being 'reminded' only relates to the 20 July 1995 meeting.  If she has a quote from that meeting of Mike being reminded, all she has had to do since before Christmas 2021 is post the fucking thing.

As for Mike's consistency, she's chosen the wrong start date. Mike didn't claim that Anne was involved until circa November 1994.  If she starts any analysis before this date it will show her bad faith.

But she's misunderstood the point about consistency in any case, for she says:

'Bear in mind that the word 'consistently' was used by Kattrup, and backed up by RJ, presumably because they believe that if a liar appears to tell one story more 'consistently' than another, then it's likely to be true.'

But Kattrup didn't say this at all.  What he said to Paul Begg in #7947 was that 'there are many similarities between her [Anne's] handwriting and the handwriting found in the diary' and that, in this context, Paul should be 'keeping in mind, of course, that Mike consistently claimed that it's her handwriting'.

It was when responding to this post, in an attempt to bamboozle Paul Begg and others, that Miss Information DENIED that Mike had consistently claimed that the diary was in Anne's handwriting.   And, further, she claimed that, in July 1995, Mike had to be REMINDED that he had said the diary was in her handwriting.

Both claims are false.   But, if her point is simply that Mike's consistency doesn't mean he was telling the truth, which I would certainly agree it doesn't, she could have made this point very simply and briefly in her original response to Kattrup.
But, of course, Miss Information doesn't work like that. She has to challenge everything said by anyone who thinks that the Barretts could have written the diary, even when that ends up with her going down absurd routes and having to make endless frantic defensive posts to try and cover up her mistakes. 

Miss Information in #8605 speaking of Lord Orsam, RJ and Kattrup, wrote:

'It's not entirely their fault that there is a wealth of material yet to be published...'

I love the word 'entirely' slipped in there.
It's not our fault at all.  I've been calling literally for YEARS for more material to be published but it's fallen on deaf ears because the diary defenders like to be the gatekeepers of information and absolutely hate the idea that anyone might to be able to use 'their' documents in support of the modern hoax theory.

It's all a big diversion tactic, throwing up dust in the eyes of the members of the forum, in a desperate but entirely futile attempt to make them think there is a huge pool of secret information out there which supports her case.
We've already seen that the one new document she quoted from - Mike's letter to Doreen - actually supported what RJ was saying!  That's how desperate things have become for diary defenders that they are reduced to posting extracts from documents which actually contradict their own understanding by way of glorious self-own.
If there is unpublished material in Miss Information's possession which reveals anything to do with the origins of the diary - material omitted from her book 'Inside Story' - it would be better to post or publish it than write long rambling posts about how much information is out there which only she knows about so that no one else can possibly contradict her because of all her incredible secret knowledge which she can't possibly reveal because then she'd have to kill you. 

Following RJ Palmer's post at #8037 of the Incontrovertible thread in which he had stated:
'Indeed, looking over Lord Orsam's well documented chronology, it appears that Kattrup was absolutely correct.  Mike made statements about Anne 'writing the diary' in 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998 and 1999.  Which certainly appears to be consistent'. 
Miss Information then said this in #8065: 
'But readers should be made aware that the argument for consistency is based on a limited supply of material, much of it fed selectively to Alan Gray by Mike during the period when he was motivated to claim that he and his estranged wife had faked the diary together. This material was passed on to Melvin Harris, and eventually appears to have found its way to Lord Orsam.'

It's nothing less than utter bollocks for her to say that 'much' of the material which supports the argument of consistency has been derived from Melvin Harris via Alan Gray.   The only document which falls into this category is Mike's signed statement from 5 November 1994.
The majority of the material for consistency comes from her own book!!!

Let's go through it:
5 November 1994 - Mike lodges statement at Walton Police Station to say that Anne wrote the diary (source: statement in possession of Lord Orsam).
6 November 1994 - In a recorded conversation, Mike tells Alan Gray that Anne wrote the diary (source: Inside Story, page 153).
7 November 1994 - In another recorded conversation, Mike tells Alan Gray that the handwriting is Anne's (source: Inside Story, pages 145).
5 January 1995 - Mike's affidavit states that Anne wrote the diary (source: Inside Story, page 165).
26 January 1995 - Mike repeats in a written statement that Anne transcribed the diary (source: Casebook).
20 July 1995 - Mike tells Paul Feldman, Keith Skinner and Martin Howells at a meeting that Anne wrote the diary (source: Inside Story, p.202).
February 1996 - Mike sends two letters to Anne saying that she wrote the diary (source: Inside Story, p. 210).
July 1996 - Mike writes in a letter to Doreen Montgomery that the diary handwriting is Anne's (source: Miss Information Casebook Post, 4 January 2022, #8063 of Incontrovertible thread, much thanks to Miss Info for the additional evidence of consistency). 
Early 1998 - Barrett tells Gray that he wrote the diary and Anne wrote it down (source: Inside Story, page 226).
11 September 1998 - Mike states on oath at Liverpool Crown Court that he composed the text and Anne wrote it down (source: Inside Story, p. 228).
10 April 1999 - Mike tells the Cloak & Dagger club that the Diary had been written by Anne but created by him (source: Inside Story, page 236).

21 June 1999 - Mike writes in a letter to Shirley Harrison that Anne wrote the diary (source: Inside Story, page 238). 
So the vast majority of sources which demonstrate the consistency of Mike saying that Anne wrote the diary (as cited by RJ Palmer based on my chronology) come from Inside Story, Miss Information's own book!
The irony, of course, of Miss Information's interpretation of someone being 'reminded' of something being that it's simply a case of their memory being triggered, is that in that very interpretation potentially lies the answer to the entire case on coincidence.

For 'the Orsam theory' works perfectly well if, on or shortly before 9 March 1992, Mike had been reminded,  by electricians talking loudly in the Saddle about their work in Battlecrease, of an unfinished manuscript he'd worked on during 1991, possibly with Tony Devereux, in which James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper.

It would only have needed one of those electricians to mention that they were working in James Maybrick's old house, perhaps lifting the floorboards, which could have reminded Mike of the idea for the diary of Jack the Ripper by Maybrick.

That would perfectly explain why Mike telephoned Doreen Montgomery on 9 March 1992 as opposed to any other date. It would also entirely explain why Mike was then in a rush to obtain a genuine Victorian diary containing blank pages.

So, because of this 'reminder', the amaaazing coincidence of electricians working in Maybrick's house on 9 March 1992, including one who drank at the Saddle, is easily explained, without requiring the diary to have been found under the floorboards.

Thing is, while this coincidence can easily be explained within 'the Orsam theory', the diary defenders can't, within their own theory, explain why Mike was secretly attempting to acquire a genuine diary with blank pages after 9 March 1992.
The obvious conclusion is that 'the Orsam theory' is correct and we do not need to trouble ourselves too much with the supposed amaaazing coincidence of the electricians. 


Lord Orsam is highly amused by Christer Holmgren's repeated attempts in the 'Evidence of Innocence' thread to interpret Wynne Baxter's comment that the discovery of the body of Nichols could not have occurred 'far from' 3.45am as being that it occurred at 3.45. 

It's not so much the perversion of the English language that is required here to reach that result.  And it's not so much that Christer has ignored the fact that Baxter also said that the body of Nichols was discovered 'in LESS than an hour and a quarter' after 2.30am, which must mean that he was saying it was earlier than 3.45am.  Let's assume for the purpose of this discussion that Baxter said that the discovery of the body had happened AT 3.45.  Would that be reliable information?

Of course not!  Baxter hadn't even conducted an investigation into the timings.  Neither Cross nor Paul were asked how they fixed the time of their departure from their houses.  No one was asked how long it would have taken either of them to walk from their houses to Buck's Row.  Not a single other witness was asked how they fixed their own timings.  So it doesn't matter how much his words are taken as being the equivalent of a biblical text, written by the Lord Almighty, and incapable of error, Baxter wasn't in any kind of position to make a reliable ruling on the time of discovery  

But where the real hypocrisy comes in is that, while Christer relies on Wynne Baxter in the case of Mary Ann Nichols as the ultimate arbiter of timings, a man whose words can and should be taken as the literal truth, in the case of Annie Chapman, that very same Wynne Baxter is a bungling incompetent who hasn't got a clue about timings!!

Even though Baxter entirely overruled Dr Phillips's estimate as to the time of death of Chapman, and concluded that Chapman was murdered at around 5.30am on 8 September 1888, Mr Holmgren disregards that entirely.   Baxter, according to Christer, knew NOTHING about estimating timings!!!   The witness who gave evidence about seeing Chapman alive at around 5.30 was wrong!   The witness who seemed to overhear an attack on Chapman at around this same time was also wrong!

Furthermore, it's not just a case of Baxter preferring the evidence of two witnesses over the medical examiner.  Oh no, at this inquest, according Christer, Baxter didn't even UNDERSTAND the evidence he was hearing from that medical examiner, whose fee he was paying.  Thus, when he categorically and unequivocally told his jury that Dr Phillips had qualified his evidence about the time of death, and had admitted that it might have been later than 4.30am, Baxter was even wrong about this!!!

In Christer World, Dr Phillips hadn't qualified his evidence and Baxter was confused about what he had been told by his medical witness.

So, from being a master of the evidence at one inquest, whereby we can rely on the coroner's word as being the literal truth in respect of timings of events, regardless of what we know the evidence of the witnesses to have been, at the next inquest which was proceeding at the very same time, we must regard that same coroner as a hopeless interpreter of the evidence and someone who knew very little about estimating timings!!!

Oh the irony, oh the hypocrisy, oh the talking out of both sides of one's mouth, of the delicious nature of having one's own fish cake and eating it!

After Little Scottie Nelson Esq. posted that Miss Information and Skinner are 'maybe sitting on [material] for whatever reason', Miss Information wrote a defensive post on the subject in #8069 of the Incontrovertible thread, full of bullshit excuses.

She said:

'One of the main problems would be the sheer impracticality of making everything available' 

I see, so that's why NOTHING is being made available, is it?  Pray continue.... 

'one of the other main problems has always been the criticism received whenever any previously unpublished information is released.'
This is bullshit.  Not a single example was provided of such criticism of Keith Skinner for releasing information.

I can only recall three examples of important unpublished information being released by Keith Skinner or Miss Information over the past 6 years (which is the time I've been involved with the Maybrick diary).  The first was Mike Barrett's research notes in September 2017 (although these had, in fact, previously been made available some years earlier).  The second was Doreen Montgomery's correspondence which was released in February 2018. The third was the recording of the Cloak & Dagger meeting released in November 2019.  There was zero criticism of Keith Skinner for releasing these items.  On the contrary, I personally thanked him for releasing the Doreen correspondence in February 2018!

Ironically, after I produced Anne Barrett's handwritten correspondence on the Casebook Form, I was criticised by none other than Keith Skinner who wanted to know if I'd obtained Anne's permission to post her correspondence!!!  So it seems we have not only bullshit but projection going on here from Miss Information. 
Then we have more bullshit:
'Instead of this being appreciated, as it can be a time-consuming and complex exercise, too often it turns out to have been an entirely thankless task, when those who shouted loudest for it proceeded to ignore it, or find fault with it, before making fresh demands.' 

Who has ever ignored any of the information provided by Keith Skinner?   It hasn't been ignored at all!   I wrote an entire article about the Cloak & Dagger recording!  I've also now written an article about Mike's research notes!  I've written at length about Doreen Montgomery's correspondence.

Equally, who has ever found fault with the information produced by Keith Skinner?

She's basically just making things up now.  I really don't know where it even comes from.

She seems to have forgotten that Keith Skinner literally promised to put up the transcript of the diary created by the Barretts in 1992 before reneging on that promise even though he admitted that some people might find 'meaning' in some discrepancies in the transcript.

The only sensible interpretation is that Keith didn't want anyone to identify those discrepancies.

The fact of the matter is that, whenever information has been released, the diary defenders have been aghast to discover that this information has been used in support of the argument that the Barretts' forged the diary.   The Cloak & Dagger recording was the strongest possible argument of Mike's involvement and, moreover, proved that both Keith Skinner and Miss Information hadn't listened properly to what Mike was saying that night and completely misunderstood him.

The Doreen Montgomery correspondence revealed that Anne Graham was anxious that the diary should be kept in a safe and also indicated that no firm date had been fixed on 9 or 10 March for when Mike would come down to London with the diary.

The research notes have also provided strong support for the notion that Mike was involved with the forgery.

So what I suggest Miss Information is really concerned about is that giving information to Lord Orsam, RJ Palmer and others always seems to end up with the Barretts being identified even more strongly as the diary authors!!!

Miss Information also said in her post:

'We are not 'sitting on it' because there are any identifiable smoking guns to prove the Barretts had inside knowledge of the diary's origins. If we ever find one, I like to think we would share our considerable relief with everyone.'

This is thoroughly disingenuous.  No one is claiming that they are hiding 'smoking guns'

The main criticism of their failure to release evidence is that in doing so they are holding back material which supports the argument that the Barretts were involved.  Not material which, on its own, proves the Barretts' involvement but material which, when put together with all the other material, enhances the likelihood of their involvement.

They are also criticised because they like to keep back documents so that they can selectively quote from them in support of their online arguments without having released the documents in full.

Then we have this ludicrous sentence:

'We are also not 'sitting on it' just for fun, to bait certain posters, who make mistake after mistake because their first mistake was to think they could safely ignore any material they hadn't personally seen or heard. '

It's impossible to know what she means by this.   Any sensible person MUST ignore material which they haven't seen or heard!  How can you even rely on material which you haven't seen or heard?  What does it mean?

Perhaps the addition of the word 'personally' is supposed to have some significance.  I'm not sure if she's referring to hearsay evidence here or not.  But if she is talking about a reliable source reporting something they have seen or heard to a third party, I'd like some examples of where this has been ignored and who has ignored it.

Again, without examples, we have to call bullshit.

It was, in truth, an entire post of empty waffling bullshit.
This is incredible.

#8075 of the Incontrovertible thread: 

'My favourite suspect for penman is currently Sooty, aided and abetted by Soo. They are far better bets than either a Barrett or a Barrat.' 

This followed her gracious permission given to the Major for him to be 99.9% certain that the diary was written by James Maybrick.  This was something which she said was permissible (and the Major should 'fear not') because:
'I don't think you have ever claimed to 'know damn well' who wrote it - as in being 100% certain - so  you are not under suspicion and you are free to believe whatever you like.'

It's both obsessive and bonkers because I can say with some confidence that Mr Barrat has never claimed to 'know damn well' who wrote it.  In fact, her use of unattributed quotation marks here followed by the reference to Mr Barrat is nothing short of devious and very naughty, giving her readers the impression she was quoting something Mr Barrat had once said.

Nor has Mr Barrat, like myself, ever claimed to be 100% certain that the diary was written by the Barretts nor has he even claimed to be 99.9% certain, even though we now now that this would be a perfectly acceptable position to take, according to Miss Information.

What I know of Mr Barrat is that, just like myself, he is 100% certain that no one writing in 1888 could have written the expression 'one off instance' so that the diary is certainly a fake.  

Perhaps Miss Information has got the two separate arguments muddled up in her mind. 

We may also note that Miss Information has repeatedly claimed to be certain that the diary came up from under the floorboards.

Hence, on 8 January 2018 (#325 of the Acquiring thread) she wrote:

'I have never been more sure, despite what David Orsam thinks he is bringing to the party, that the diary was found when the floorboards were lifted on March 9th 1992'. 

This followed on from her telling us on 7 August 2013 that she had 'absolutely no doubt' that the diary came out of Battlecrease House.  That sounds like 100% certainty to me!

Then, on 30 April 2015, we were expressly told by her:
 'I am 100% certain that Mike got involved by pure chance, and long after the diary had been written and placed in Battlecrease'.

In contradiction of this 100% certainty, we were recently told by Keith Skinner that he and Miss Information are 99% certain that the Barretts were not involved in the forgery, although the basis for this near certainty is entirely unclear.

I have explained at length why I feel sure that Mike was involved in some way in the forgery plot but Keith and Miss Information haven't sensibly explained why they are so sure he was not.
Anyway, the key point here, apart from the sheer hypocrisy of someone claiming to be 100% certain that Mike Barrett was not involved while criticizing anyone who claims to be 100% certain that he was, is to ask yourself how obsessed Miss Information is by both Mr Barrat and Lord Orsam that she keeps mentioning us at every opportunity even when there is no sane or rational reason for her to do so. 
On 13 January 2022, Miss Information posted what was presumably her advertised 'housekeeping post' in which she had promised (e.g. #8077 of the Incontrovertible thread) to address two aspects:

1. Whether Mike was 'reminded' in July that the diary was not in his handwriting

2. How 'consistently' since 1994 Mike remembered (her word) to claim it was Anne's handwriting.

The supposed 'housekeeping' post of #8078 consisted of nothing more than six document extracts which Miss Information said she was posting 'with no further comment'.  That's not surprising because the extracts she posted failed to do what she claimed they were going to do.  In fact, it was a hugely embarrassing and dismal failure on her part.  No wonder she didn't want to comment!

With respect to the consistency of Mike's claim about Anne having written the diary, all she did (as I was already expecting) was post some extracts from the period 1994 to 1999 in which Mike claimed he received the diary from Tony Devereux.

I've made the point repeatedly that Mike switched from claiming the diary was a forgery to saying that he got it from Tony depending on whether it looked like he might make money out of it, especially from the prospect of a major film, or to please Anne. 

We all know this.

I even posted myself the full transcripts of Mike's September 1995 interview on BBC Radio Merseyside in which he switched to the Tony Devereux story that she's now posted small snippets of!  

The point about Mike's consistency is that whenever he claimed the document was a forgery between 1994 and 1999 he said that it was Anne who wrote the text.  His story was consistent in this respect.

There's no point in Miss Information producing evidence that Mike switched from his forgery story to the Tony Devereux origin story after 1994 because no one was saying Mike was consistent in claiming the diary was a forgery.

He was, however, consistent in saying that Anne wrote the diary at all times from November 1994 when he was claiming the diary was a forgery.  THAT is the consistency.

Perhaps Miss Information has turned into Miss Understanding, but it's a dreadful and shocking misunderstanding of what both Kattrup and RJ Palmer (and, of course, myself) were saying.

For some reason, Miss Information's first quote in her post is from a handwritten note on the reverse of a proof cover of Shirley Harrison's book from September 1994.  As Mike had not yet started claiming that Anne was the forger at this stage, I fail to see the purpose of this extract but, in any case, it contains nothing more than Mike saying that he had 'Let everyone down'.  So what does it prove?  I can only guess she was so desperate for material to include in her post that she included irrelevant stuff.

Similarly, her last quote is a letter from Mike to Feldman dated 27 February 1996 in which Mike says nothing whatsoever about the authorship or origins of the diary  but merely seems to be dealing with the question of whether Anne was related to Florence Maybrick, hence Mike had been trying to obtain a sample of her hair, which appears to have been at the request of Feldman, presumably for his book.  Mike tells Feldman that the sample did not match, which he said he already knew.  I  have no idea how this is supposed to be evidence of Mike being inconsistent about Anne having forged the diary.

The only other quote provided by Miss Information relating to the authorship of the diary is from the meeting of 20 July 1995 in which Mike, being consistent with what he'd stated before, without being reminded of anything, said that Anne wrote the diary.

Now, I have made the point many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many times that the sentence "I wrote the diary" is ambiguous.

It can mean "I drafted the text of the diary" OR "I physically handwrote the diary into the journal"
Unless you are able to clarify which meaning is intended in any situation it can be confusing.

In Miss Information's transcript of the 20 July 1995 meeting, Mike starts off saying:

'I wrote the diary, that is a fact...I wrote that bloody diary'.

This is consistent with his claim that he drafted the diary and dictated it to Anne.
He also said exactly the same thing at the Cloak & Dagger club in April 1999 while ALSO saying that Anne wrote the diary.  I literally dealt with this in my Man in a Pub article as follows:

Mike says, 'I know I've wrote it, but I haven't wrote it.  Anne's wrote it.'  He's not contradicting himself here.  He's making the point that he drafted it while Anne physically wrote it into the black ledger, or scrapbook.  This is an important distinction but it's one that seems to have confused people over the years.  When Mike speaks of 'writing' the Diary, it's impossible to know without further information whether he's talking of the initial drafting of the Diary's text, the finalizing of the Diary's text or the manuscript writing of it.  This is why his statements of 'I wrote it but I didn't write it' which sound quite mad on first blush do make sense. 

Now, in response to Mike saying 'I wrote the diary' Feldman interpreted him as saying that he physically wrote the diary because he said: 'Let's see the handwriting.  Just like you did when you wrote it'.  Mike, who doesn't confirm this, then asked for a little pen with a little gold nib 'Just for the record'.

He didn't actually say that he personally wrote the diary.  He might have interpreted Feldman as saying 'Let's the the handwriting, just like you [and Anne] did when you [both] wrote it'.  For all we know, Mike was going to give Feldman a demonstration of how Anne wrote the diary.

Frankly, this is the only sensible interpretation because when Feldman asked for clarification as to whose handwriting is in the diary, Mike immediately said 'Anne's'.

Why would he have said 'Anne's' if he was trying to convince Feldman and the others that HE had written the diary?

Keith and Miss Information have evidently leapt to the conclusion that somehow Mike had been caught out in a lie, or had his own story wrong, but I'm not seeing that at all.

And just look at the following exchange which then occurred:

Feldman (to Martine Rooney): "It doesn't matter now.  He didn't write it so we don't need the fountain pen."
Mike: "I did write it"
Feldman: "Who wrote it you or Anne?  Whose handwriting is it, yours or Anne's?"
Mike: "Anne's".

To me, Mike, who has now TWICE in the meeting said that the handwriting in the diary was Anne's, was being perfectly clear.   He wrote the diary, in the sense of writing the text, but Anne wrote it in the sense of physically writing the text with a pen into the scrapbook.

The fact that Feldman didn't understand this is neither here nor there.  The fact of the matter is that each time Mike was asked whose handwriting is in the diary he said it was Anne's.  But HE still wrote the diary.

And one thing that stands out like a sore thumb is that no one at the meeting reminded Mike that he was saying Anne wrote the diary.

Miss Information was wrong to say it, and Keith Skinner was wrong to try and defend her for saying it.  They both misremembered or misunderstood.  No one reminded Mike of anything.

The evidence remains that Mike was consistent over a five year period in saying that the diary was written by Anne, in the sense of it being in her handwriting, and, at the meeting on 20 July 1995, no one reminded him of anything.

It was a miserable housekeeping failure.
You can tell what a disaster Miss Information's 'housekeeping' post was by the fact that the Major replied about an hour later (#8079) to say: 'I think you have chosen these examples extremely well'

That, of course, is diary defender code for 'What the absolute fuck have you done?'

He then just rambled on about the usual Mike Barrett failings while ignoring that there was a specific purpose to those extracts having been posted which was entirely unsupported by them!

Nowhere in his post, believe it or not, does one find the words 'reminded' or 'consistency' which was supposed to be what it was all about. 

If the transcript of the 20 July 1995 meeting posted by Miss Information in #8078 of the 'Incontrovertible' thread is a full an accurate transcript, as one would certainly expect it to be, there's a big problem.

Page 202 of Inside Story tells us:

'Initially Barrett announces to Feldman, Martin Howells and Keith Skinner, who are also present,  that he has come to prove how he forged the diary.'

This doesn't happen in the transcript posted by Miss Information herself.  Nowhere does Mike say that he had come to the meeting to prove how he forged the diary.

Had Mike said it, surely it would have been included in the transcript, being directly relevant to the issue Miss Information was addressing.

Instead, what we see from the transcript is that Feldman says to Mike that he wants to see the handwriting.

Truly, if Miss Information's transcript is comprehensive, as one assumes it must be, the authors of Inside Story have presented a highly misleading context of the meeting. 

Then, Inside Story tells us on page 202 that Mike says:

'there is an envelope in Richard Bark-Jones's office, which can only be opened on Barrett's instructions, which will prove this.'

This isn't included in the transcript provided by Miss Information - there's no mention of an envelope - which makes one wonder what is going on here.  What is correct?  Miss Information's transcript or the account of the meeting in Inside Story?

A third problem is that Inside Story tells us:

'He has bought a bottle of the same Diamine ink he used and now he needs a nib to show how he wrote the Diary.' 

That's not in the transcript either!  There's no mention of Diamine ink in Miss Information's transcript.  More importantly, in Miss Information's transcript, Mike does NOT say that 'now he needs a nib to show how he wrote the Diary'.  He certainly asks for a pen with a little gold nib but at no point does he say he needs it to 'show how he wrote the Diary' or anything similar.  Where did THAT come from?

Inside Story then goes on to say that:

'He solemnly swears on a Bible that he and Anne forged the Diary together and that Anne told him  she has both Paul Feldman and Keith Skinner 'by the balls'.' 

Amazingly, none of that is in Miss Information's transcript.  Nothing like it even though although Feldman is later recorded as saying that he'd heard Mike swear 'three times today' on the Bible.  So where is that? Where are those three instances of Mike swearing on the Bible?  Why have they been excised?

The claim that 'he and Anne forged the Diary together' is the central issue that Miss Information was addressing, i.e. the consistency of Mike's claim that Anne was involved in the forgery.  So where do we find in Miss Information's transcript Mike saying that he was solemnly swearing anything on a Bible?  We don't.   There is also nothing in the transcript about Anne having both Paul and Keith by the balls.

What's going on here?

Incredibly the next sentence of Inside Story is also not supported by the transcript:

'Paul Feldman then agrees to go and get a nib and blotting paper for Barrett to prove how he wrote the Diary.'

That doesn't happen at all in Miss Information's transcript in which Paul agrees nothing of the sort. Instead Martine Rooney was apparently going to look for a pen (but the part where she's been asked to do this has been omitted from Miss Information's transcript).

It gets worse.   This is the next sentence in Inside Story:

'Barrett says Anne's story is wrong; she wrote the Diary.' 

That's not supported by the transcript either!!  Mike doesn't say anything in the transcript about 'Anne's story' being wrong.  Anne's story isn't mentioned! 

And then, I kid you not, the next and final bit of the summary in Inside Story is incorrect too!

For we are told by the authors of Inside Story:

'Why then, Feldman enquires, does Barrett want a pen, if he did not write the Diary. Barrett evades the question, saying he created the Diary on the word processor and Anne wrote it.' 

According to Miss Information's transcript, Feldman does ask Barrett why he wants a pen if he didn't write the diary (literally the ONLY part of Inside Story's summary which is confirmed by Miss Information's transcript!) but Mike's answer is not that he created the Diary on the word processor and Anne wrote it.  What Mike is recorded as saying in answer to Feldman's question (asked twice) in Miss Information's transcript is firstly: 'Hang on, hang on - bear with me, just bear with me. Just bear with me. Just bear with me, please Paul and I ask you to bear with me.' and then (on the second occasion): 'It's so simple it's untrue.  Jesus Christ, it's so simple it's untrue'.

At no point in the transcript provided by Miss Information does Mike even mention a word processor, so how does it come about that Inside Story tells us that Mike responded to the question by saying that he created the Diary on the word processor?

I don't think I've ever seen anything like this in terms of such massive discrepancies between two accounts of one recorded meeting.  Other than Feldman's question to Mike about why he wanted a pen, not one sentence in the entire summary of the meeting found on page 202 of Inside Story is supported by Miss Information's transcript!!!!

Someone is misleading us.  Is it Miss Information and her transcript or is it the authors of Inside Story?   

If it's the authors of Inside Story, can we really trust any of their summaries of events?
Do we need to hear the entirety of the recording of the 20 July 1995 meeting?  Yes, I think we do.  If the authors of Inside Story are even partially correct in their summary of the meeting we've been given a misleading and incomplete transcript by Miss Information.
If Miss Information's transcript is accurate and complete we've been given false information by the authors of Inside Story. 


Let's compare the transcript of the 20 July 1995 meeting provided by Feldman in his 1997 book with the transcript now provided by Miss Information.

The first thing we can see is that Feldman omitted the first two lines of the conversation between him and Mike.  His transcript begins with Mike saying:

'I don't suppose you've got a pen, with a little gold nib, have you? Just for the record...' 

That line does appear in Miss Information's transcript almost word for word the same but it follows Mike saying that the the diary is a forgery which he wrote, and then Feldman saying 'Let's see the handwriting.  Just like you did when you wrote it'.

Now none of the next passage, other than the part coloured in orange, is included in Miss Information's transcript although she gives no indication of any editing:

PHF: I'll go and buy one.

MB: I don't suppose you've got one?

PHF: Yes, I have.

MH: We could go and get one.

PHF: I've got one next door.  I'll go and get one for you.  All right?

MB: And blot [sic] paper. Blotting paper.

PHF: Blotting paper.

MB: Right, blotting paper.

PHF: What is it you actually want?

MH: Blotting paper.

MB: Blotting paper and a proper nib with ink, please.

PHF: Right [PHF leaves the room, returning after five minutes] 

Did that all happen or not?  Did Feldman leave the room for five minutes?  If so, why is there no indication of this in Miss Information's transcript?

Then both Feldman's and Miss Information's transcripts agree that Feldman said: 'Which one actually wrote it? Whose handwriting is it, yours or Anne’s?' to which Mike replied 'Anne's'. 

They then both agree that Feldman asked Mike why he wanted the pen.   To this, Feldman's transcript has Mike pausing and then saying 'Right, right...' but Miss Information's transcript has Mike saying 'Hang, on, hang on bear with me' etc. before Martin Rooney enters the room (not mentioned by Feldman) with Feldman telling Martine 'It doesn't matter now.  He didn't write it so we don't need the fountain pen' to which Mike crucially replies 'I did write it'.

The omission of Mike saying 'I did write it' at this point in the conversation rather destroys the story that Feldman was trying to tell in his book which is possibly why he omitted it.  Mike has just said that the diary is in Anne's handwriting yet he is STILL claiming to have written the diary.  I've already set out above what I think he meant by this and, indeed, it must be obvious, especially given that this was the very story set out in his affidavit by which he wrote the diary on his word processor then dictated it to Anne who wrote it into the photograph album.   

Missing out that part, Feldman's transcript NOW has Mike saying 'Hang on, hang on, bear with me' etc. which, if Miss Information's transcript is correct, is out of sequence and is giving a distorted picture of what has happened.  In Miss Information's transcript, Mike says TWICE (on two separate occasions) that the diary is in Anne's handwriting whereas Feldman only has him saying it once.

In short, Feldman appears to have making Mike look more confused than he really was.  Assuming that Miss Information's transcript is correct on this point, he's switched the sequence of the conversation around and omitted Mike saying that he wrote the diary and also omitted him saying twice that it's in Anne's handwriting.

As far as I'm concerned, that was Mike consistently saying that he drafted it but Anne did the manuscript work.

Sure it makes it odd as to why Mike asked for a fountain pen but, like I've said, perhaps he thought he could demonstrate how his wife wrote the diary.  He was surely mad enough to have had this thought.   Certainly at no point, according to BOTH transcripts, did he ever state that he was going to prove that he wrote the diary and that if someone gave him a fountain pen with a nib he would then demonstrate how he wrote the diary with a fountain pen.  That is surely Keith Skinner and Paul Feldman filling in the gaps themselves.

You really do need to watch these diary defenders like a hawk.  It's very similar to how they totally misunderstood what Mike was saying at the Cloak & Dagger meeting.
It just shows how essential it is for the original recordings to be made available so that independent people without bias against Mike can actually listen to them to establish what Mike actually DID SAY at these meetings, not what diary defenders, who have their own agenda in showing Mike to be telling different stories, thought he was saying. 

As I mentioned in Man in a Pub, Mike seemed to revert to his Tony Devereux origin story for the diary at the end of the 20 July 1995 meeting.

From the available information, it was always difficult to work out why he did this.  Was it the lure of money from a film?

Well, it's impossible to rely on what appears to be a heavily edited version of the transcript provided by Miss Information but what seems to have been a critical part of Mike's thinking is that if he went back to the Tony Devereux story, Anne might take him back.

Hence we find him addressing Anne on the recording, saying:

'It’s too important. I love you, girl. I make no bloody well bones about that, I’m crying my bloody eyes out. I love you. I miss you so much it’s untrue. God girl, I miss you so much and you keep thinking I’m trying to destroy the diary. I’m not.'

In response to this, Feldman says to Mike:
'Tell her what Tony told you, Mike.' 

I mean, it's just such blatant manipulation.  According to the transcript, Mike has just said to Feldman that he was lying when he said he got it from Tony because 'he was dead'.  Yet, as soon as Mike starts saying that he misses Anne so much it's untrue and that he's not trying to destroy the diary, Feldman prompts him to tell Anne what Tony told him.

In response to this, Mike asks 'Do you think she'll come back to me?'.  In other words, if he goes back to his false story, would Anne go back to him?

Feldman then tells Mike that his relationship with Anne is not his business.  Mike then repeats that he's telling the truth but Feldman, who doesn't seem to be interested in that, tells him, 'I've heard you lie three times today swearing on the Bible'.

So Feldman has simply decided that Mike was lying when he said he and Anne wrote the diary and has no interest in investigating that story further or asking Mike any questions about it.  He was deaf to anything other than the Tony Devereux origin story. 

The way I see it, Feldman was forcing Mike back to his Tony Devereux story.  He then presents him with Mike's 1993 affidavit.

Now, it's interesting that Miss Information's transcript says that Feldman looks 'at the April 1993 affidavit Mike has brought with him as evidence'.   Where do we find Mike saying in the transcript that he had brought that April 1993 transcript with him 'as evidence'?  We don't!  So either it's been edited out for some unknown reason or he never said it.

Presented with the 1993 affidavit, Mike first says that Tony 'didn't know the diary existed'.   Despite this, Feldman still presses him and Mike says, 'I've got to be honest, if I retract...'.  Feldman doesn't allow him to finish this sentence.   What was Mike going to say?  Something like if he retracted would Anne come back to him?  He then said he had asked Tony Devereux a thousand questions, which could be him having retracted his story although it's not entirely clear.  He could have asked Tony a thousand questions about how to pull off a forgery plot.

Then at the end Mike certainly does seem to revert to the Tony Devereux origin story (although it's not impossible that he's referring to a preliminary draft of the diary) but he's obviously been pushed towards that conclusion by Feldman.

Furthermore, it's impossible to rely on Miss Information's transcript as accurately reflecting what happened that day.  It's evidently been selectively edited.  We can't see what Feldman was telling Mike in the parts we haven't been given or what Mike was saying to Feldman. 

The shocking unreliability of the transcript and/or the summary of the meeting in Inside Story, and the ability of the diary defenders to misunderstand what Mike was saying, means that it is essential that the full recording of the meeting is released so that a proper transcript of it can be made.   

I mentioned above in the 'Housekeeping Failure' entry that Mike's letter to Feldman dated 27 February 1996, of which, for some unexplained reason, Miss Information posted only 'Extracts' (why not the full letter, what is she hiding?), says nothing about the origins of the diary.  That is certainly true but it's worth noting that Mike does also say ambiguously:

'For just over a year, Iv'e been deliberately allowing people to believe what they wish to believe of me.  WHY? To buy time. In fact, I was almost sure that someone in your 'camp' found out what I was up to. However, I need not have worried.  It turn out not so...'

This passage which, suspiciously, only contains two minor errors of spelling or grammar (although Miss Information tells us it is 'Mike's own spelling'), could mean anything.

I do wonder if it was written (or typed?) for Mike by Alan Gray, in which case Mike could have been playing games with Feldman.

I only mention this to make clear that I have noted this part of the letter but it should be borne in mind that at about exactly the same time - 'the end of February [1996] according to Inside Story (page 210) - Mike sent a typed letter to Anne saying that the diary was in her handwriting and that 'I HAVE THE FUCKED PROFF YOU WROTE IT' and that 'THE WORLD WILL KNOW YOU WROTE IT.'

Then, a few days later, which must be after Mike's letter to Feldman of 27 February, Mike told Anne in a second letter that 'all would know that Anne Graham wrote the Diary of Jack the Ripper'.   He instructed her to back off 'BEFORE I TELL THE WORLD'.
Clearly Mike forgot nothing of his story.  He was very clear in his mind at all times and especially at the end of February 1996 that Anne wrote the diary. 

Before leaving the topic of the 27 February 1996 letter, one has to ask a couple of questions:
1. Why has this letter, and all mention of its existence, been withheld until now?
2. Why is it being referred to (and only by way of extracts, not the complete letter) for the very first time now, some 26 years after it was written?  

The picture it presents of Mike Barrett is very different from the one the diary defenders normally like to paint of the man because, if what Mike is saying in the letter is true, it shows him to be a very organized and diligent researcher.

For he is telling Feldman that, not only has he somehow located and contacted a distant relative of Florence Maybrick's, but he's also obtained a sample of their hair AND arranged for that hair to be DNA tested.  Then he's spent 'months' attempting to obtain some hair from his wife or daughter, apparently standing around hairdressers in order to do so, then sent that hair off to be DNA tested too!!!

What is he, the best historical researcher in the world?

I thought he was a dumb fucking idiot!

So maybe the entire letter is a tissue of lies.  In which case, why is it now being presented to us as evidence of anything? 
But maybe it's true.  In which case, why has it been suppressed for the best part of 26 years????!!!   
Isn't it important to know that Mike obtained (or at least claimed to have obtained) DNA evidence proving that his wife wasn't related to Florence Maybrick?   After all, one of the claims made by the Major in his daft 'Society's Pillar' is that Anne WAS a possible descendant of Florence's?  So this is pretty key information, isn't it?

Yet, to repeat the point, if it's all false and Mike was talking bollocks to Feldman, and playing games with him, what is it supposed to show about the consistency of Mike's claims that Anne forged the diary?
Frankly, the answer is nothing either way!

The same would be true if it transpires that the DNA investigation was done, but by Alan Gray.  All it would show is that Barrett and/or Gray wanted to disprove Feldman's story about Florence being his wife's great-great (or whatever) grandmother. 
In #8086 Miss Information tells us that the only point she is seeking to make from this letter is that if Mike wanted to prove to Feldman that Anne wasn't related to Florence Maybrick all he had to do was produce the auction ticket.  But if, at February 1996, he'd either destroyed, lost or temporarily mislaid the auction ticket he couldn't have done that.  So it's a complete non-event.

But it's a classic example of selective releasing of information by a diary defender when it suits their own purpose.  Here Miss Information was absolutely desperate to cite examples of Mike not sticking to his forgery claim during the period 1994 to 1999.  So she dredged up a letter, the existence of which has so far been kept strictly secret because it never previously fit her agenda.
And to add insult to injury she's only posted 'Extracts' not the full letter, so what is she still trying to hide? 

Isn't it now time for ALL available documents to be released online so that anyone interested in the subject of the diary can see the full picture?

I see the Clanger in 2022 remains as committed to peddling misinformation as ever.  He falsely states in #5244 of the 'Evidence of Innocence' thread that:

'we've only recently been able to name the Pickford's carman because he withheld his name in court'. 

This is totally untrue.  The Pickford's carman gave his name in court.  He truthfully stated it was Charles Cross.

The Clanger contrasts this to a witness at an 1893 inquest into the death of Eliza Frost (the witness being her son) of whom the Clanger laughably says that he: 'naturally felt it was appropriate to disclose his real name when summoned as a witness at his mother's inquest'.

This is so far from the truth as to be unreal.

As the article posted by the Clanger shows, what happened is that the man, George Frost, was called to give evidence under the name of 'Gould' but he didn't respond, even though he was sitting in the court (and had somehow been sworn in as a jury member).  When he finally worked out that HE was being called as a witness, he obviously had to explain to the coroner that, although he was known as 'Gould' (a surname which his mother had used), he was actually George Frost.

It's very far from a witness naturally feeling it 'appropriate'  to do anything because he was compelled to disclose that he had two surnames.  The report produced by the Clanger even says that he did so 'in reply to the Coroner'.   He would have had to have explained that his name was 'Frost' anyway bearing in mind that he was the son of the deceased, Eliza Frost.

It's a completely different situation to the one where Charles Cross found himself in.  He was only required to give one name.  Obviously, as a Pickford's carman, the name he was known by at Pickfords would have been the appropriate name. 


The Resident Board Thug on the Censorship Forum unwisely chose the first Orsam Day of 2022 to launch an astonishing assault on Lord Orsam (#5354 of the 'Evidence of Innocence' thread).  The man who once  called Hallie Rubenhold a 'pampered twat' as part of a pack assault on the woman in JTR Forums, had the absolute cheek to say:

'The personal attacks on Christer remind me of the pack mentality endangered by the Spandex Bully towards 'Pierre'.'

'Spandex Bully' is obviously the Clanger's latest incredibly clever insult for Lord Orsam due to his book about Spandau Ballet.  You see, Spandau is a bit similar to the word 'spandex', with both words sharing the first five letters, so it's really very clever.

I truly have no idea what personal attacks on Christer are being made in the thread and find it hard to believe there have been any because such attacks would be against the Forum rules but the fact of the matter is that, while I was a member of the Forum, I actually DEFENDED Pierre from the pack mentality of those arrogant posters who wanted him (or her as it transpired) kicked off the Forum. 

So the Clanger's memory has let him down, again.

Along with others, I certainly challenged many of Pierre's arguments, which have all turned out to be false, just like the Clanger later challenged Pierre's arguments in more than 250 posts in a thread on JTR Forums.

There were no 'personal attacks' on Pierre by me.  Of course there weren't. Personal attacks are against the rules.  They would have been reported by Pierre and I would have been sanctioned.  This didn't happen. 

It's worth recalling, as I set out in Lord Orsam Says...Part 9 under the heading 'CLANGING HYPOCRISY', that the Forum's Resident Thug, the Clanger himself,  while refusing to engage in the topic under discussion, told Pierre on 26 July 2016 that 'he' should 'grow up' and that all Pierre was achieving was showing that 'he' was 'the smartest arse'
As I wrote in 'Lord Orsam Says...Part 9, 'One can only imagine the extraordinary pomposity inside the mind of a person who feels able to intervene in a discussion in this way' and that 'now we see it's not just pomposity, it's hypocrisy too.  Because he thinks it's perfectly okay for HIM to debate at length with Pierre about Pierre's nonsense when HE wants to'.

The man who is the true bully is the Board Thug, also known as the Clanger.  No question about it. As far as I can see, he's a man on edge due to the ill-conceived position he's taken on Lechmere and doesn't like the fact that so many people are challenging him on his absurd beliefs.  The Clanger, as we all know, does not like to be challenged.

21 January 2022 

PHF: I'll go and buy one.

MB: I don't suppose you've got one?

PHF: Yes, I have.

MH: We could go and get one.

PHF: I've got one next door.  I'll go and get one for you.  All right?

MB: And blot [sic] paper. Blotting paper.

PHF: Blotting paper.

MB: Right, blotting paper.

PHF: What is it you actually want?

MH: Blotting paper.

MB: Blotting paper and a proper nib with ink, please.

PHF: Right [PHF leaves the room, returning after five minutes]

MB: Yes.

PHF: I'll go and buy one.

MB: I don't suppose you've got one?

PHF: Yes, I have.

MH: We could go and get one.

PHF: I've got one next door.  I'll go and get one for you.  All right?

MB: And blot [sic] paper. Blotting paper.

PHF: Blotting paper.

MB: Right, blotting paper.

PHF: What is it you actually want?

MH: Blotting paper.

MB: Blotting paper and a proper nib with ink, please.

PHF: Right [PHF leaves the room, returning after five minutes]
PHF: I'll go and buy one.

MB: I don't suppose you've got one?

PHF: Yes, I have.

MH: We could go and get one.

PHF: I've got one next door.  I'll go and get one for you.  All right?

MB: And blot [sic] paper. Blotting paper.

PHF: Blotting paper.

MB: Right, blotting paper.

PHF: What is it you actually want?

MH: Blotting paper.

MB: Blotting paper and a proper nib with ink, please.

PHF: A little gold nib?

MB: Yes.

PHF: I'll go and buy one.

MB: I don't suppose you've got one?

PHF: Yes, I have.

MH: We could go and get one.

PHF: I've got one next door.  I'll go and get one for you.  All right?

MB: And blot [sic] paper. Blotting paper.

PHF: Blotting paper.

MB: Right, blotting paper.

PHF: What is it you actually want?

MH: Blotting paper.

MB: Blotting paper and a proper nib with ink, please.

PHF: Right [PHF leaves the room, returning after five minutes]